Assessment of residents’ destination

image and their pro-tourism development

behaviour: perspectives on the
China–Pakistan economic corridor
Shama Nazneen , Hong Xu and Nizam Ud Din

Abstract Shama Nazneen and Hong

Purpose – Based on Butlers’ Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model and stakeholder theory, this Xu are both based at the
paper aims to propose an integrative model to examine the perceived impacts of cross-border College of Tourism and
mega-infrastructure development within the China–Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC). It was Service Management,
hypothesised that these perceptions may be predictors of residents’ perceived destination image Nankai University, Tianjin,
(RPDI) and pro-tourism development behaviour (PTDB). China. Nizam Ud Din is
Design/methodology/approach – Interviewer adopted a self-administered questionnaire method and a based at Nankai Business
descriptive technique to analyse the data. School, Nankai University,
Findings – The empirical results of 800 questionnaires in SEM indicates that, perceived Tianjin, China, and the
CPEC benefits positively effects RPDI and PTDB. Further, the perceived CPEC costs positively
Department of Business
influenced RPDI but had a negative relationship with PTDB. Moreover, RPDI partially mediated
Administration, Karakoram
between perceived CPEC benefits and PTDB but fully mediated between perceived CPEC costs
and PTDB. International University,
Originality/value – In residents’ destination image studies, there is a paucity of the application of Gilgit, Pakistan.
Butlers’ TALC model. Therefore, application of Butlers’ TALC model in residents’ destination image
study in the context of cross-border mega-infrastructure development project of CPEC is entirely
new.
Keywords Residents’ destination image, Pro-tourism development behaviour, Perceived CPEC impacts,
Multiple group analysis, Butlers’ TALC model, Stakeholder theory
Paper type Research paper

居民旅游目的地形象评价及其亲旅游开发行为研究：以中巴经济走廊为例
目的 : 本文基于巴特勒的旅游目的地生命周期模型和利益相关者理论, 提出一个整合的模型用于考察跨越
国境的大型基础设施在中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊的影响。本文假定对这些影响的感知能够预测当地居民感 Received 24 August 2019
知目的地形象和旅游发展前的行为。 Revised 10 October 2019
27 November 2019
方法 : 使用自填式问卷和描述性数据分析技术。 21 December 2019
Accepted 21 December 2019
发现 : 通过对800份问卷数据的结构方程分析, 发现感知中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊收益积极影响居民感知目
的地形象和旅游发展前的行为。进一步, 感知中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊成本积极影响居民感知目的地形象 Disclosure statement. The
但是消极影响旅游发展前的行为。而且, 居民感知目的地形象部分中介了感知中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊收 authors reported no potential
conflict of interest..
益和旅游发展前的行为, 完全中介了感知中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊成本和旅游发展前的行为。
The authors would like to
贡献 : 在居民目的地形象研究中, 很少使用巴特勒的旅游目的地生命周期模型。故而, 在居民目的地形象 extend their appreciation to
研究中使用巴特勒的旅游目的地生命周期模型, 应用在中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊这一跨国界的大型基础设 Dr Carson L. Jenkins (Emeritus
Professor), Hospitality and
施开发项目情境中, 是创新的。 Tourism Management,
关键词 : 目的地形象, 旅游发展前行为, 巴特勒旅游目的地生命周期模型, 利益相关者理论, 感知中国-巴基 University of Strathclyde
斯坦经济走廊的影响, 多群组分析 Glasgow, UK, for his
exceptional research
论文类型 : 研究论文 guidance.

DOI 10.1108/TR-08-2019-0352 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j

 Evaluación de la imagen del destino de la población y su comportamiento favorable al desarrollo
del turismo: del corredor económico China-Pakistán (CPEC) Perspectivas
Propo sito : Este trabajo, basado en el modelo de CDVT de Butlers y la teorı´a de stakeholder, propone
un modelo integrador para examinar los impactos percibidos del desarrollo transfronterizo de

megainfraestructuradentro dentro del corredor economico China-Pakistán (CPEC). Se presumio que
estas percepciones pueden ser predictores de la imagen de destino percibida de los residentes y del
comportamiento de desarrollo pro-turismo.
Metodología : el entrevistador adopto un método de cuestionario autoadministrado y una técnica
descriptiva para analizar los datos.
Resultados : Los resultados empı´ricos de 800 cuestionarios en el modelado de ecuaciones
estructurales (SEM, por sus siglas en inglés) indican que los beneficios percibidos del CPEC influyen
positivamente en la RPDI y en el comportamiento de desarrollo pro-turismo. Además, los costos
percibidos del CPEC influyeron positivamente en la RPDI pero tuvieron una relacion  negativa con el
desarrollo pro-turismo. Por otra parte, la RPDI media parcialmente entre los beneficios percibidos del
CPEC y el comportamiento de desarrollo pro-turismo, pero totalmente mediado entre los costos
percibidos del CPEC y el comportamiento de desarrollo pro-turismo.
Originalidad : En los estudios de imagen de destino percibida de los residentes, rara vez se aplica el
 del
Modelo del Ciclo de Vida de los Destinos Turı´sticos de Butlers (MCDVT). Por lo tanto, la aplicacion
modelo de CDVT de Butlers en el estudio de imagen de destino percibida de los residentes, en el
contexto dell proyecto de desarrollo trans-fronterizo de la mega-infraestructura del CPEC, es
completamente nuevo
Palabras clave : Imagen de destino percibida de los residents, Comportamiento de desarrollo pro-
turismo, Impacto del cpec, Análisis multigrupo, Modelo del Ciclo de Vida de los Destinos Turı´sticos de
Butlers (MCDVT), La teorı´a de stakeholder

Tipo de papel : Trabajo de investigacion

1. Introduction
The destination image is acknowledged as a powerful tool for tourism and can influence
visitors visit intentions (Yang et al., 2009; Stylidis and Cherifi, 2018). A positive destination
image is an important indicator in the tourist-destination relationship and increases the flow
of tourists to a destination (Chen and Phou, 2013; Buhalis, 2000; Kim et al., 2019). The
industrialised world possesses a positive destination image and can be associated with
increased tourism demand and economic benefits (Zeugner-Roth and Žabkar, 2015).
Conversely, the destination image of some developing countries may be less favourable due
to law and order issues, security risks, poor infrastructure, especially road and hospitality
related infrastructure, which negatively influences tourism demand and visit intentions
(Rahman et al., 2013; Raza and Jawaid, 2013). However, the provision of infrastructure,
promotion of cultural events and international sporting events within these developing
countries may positively influence destination image (Albalate and Bel, 2010). Previous studies
have identified that infrastructure development including, air and high-speed rail transportation
can improve tourism demand and revenue (Li and Chen, 2019) and destination image,
attractiveness and tourist accessibility within the destination (Feliu, 2012; Wang et al., 2012).
However, the impact of cross-border, mega-infrastructure development as an antecedent of
destination image has been largely overlooked. The cross-border collaboration may enable
regions to co-create, promote their destinations, attract tourists and gain benefits (Kozak and
Buhalis, 2019). Furthermore, residents’ attitudes towards tourism development got less
attention in Pakistan. Tourism literature indicates that most of studies are conducted in USA
and China, therefore it is essential to examine residents’ attitude towards tourism in the less
studied geographical areas because of cultural differences (Hadinejad et al., 2019). Moreover,
previous research has extensively explored on destination image from tourist perspectives
than residents’ perspectives (Stylidis et al., 2014; Stylidis, 2019).
The current study contributes to literature from the prospect of belt and road initiatives
(BRI), which is a Chinese Government cross-border, mega-infrastructure development and
investment strategy to increase connectivity between 152 Eurasian countries through six

j TOURISM REVIEW j
corridors. The current study focused on the “Gilgit-Baltistan” corridor on the
“China–Pakistan economic corridor” (CPEC), which connects China to central Asia through
the north of Pakistan. Moreover, previous tourism studies have widely investigated
destination image as an antecedent or as an outcome variable, while investigations into
destination image as a mediating variable received less attention. Therefore, current study
aims to empirically investigate-how residents’ perceived CPEC impacts influence residents’
perceived destination image (RPDI) and how RPDI influences relationship between
perceived CPEC impacts and pro-tourism development behaviour (PTDB).

2. Literature review
2.1 Theoretical background
The model for this work is based on Butlers’ Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model,
stakeholder theory and on previous literature. Within the destination image literature,
stakeholder theory has been extensively applied to explore tourist perceptions of
destination image (Kim and Perdue, 2011). However, residents as stakeholders in
destination image studies has received less attention. Similarly, Butler’s TALC model has
been widely applied in tourism research to understand residents’ attitudes towards tourism
impacts, but there is a paucity of its application in destination image studies.
Therefore, the major contribution of current work is to develop an integrative model, which
empirically ascertains how the residents’ perceived CPEC impacts influences RPDI and
PTDB. A graphical model is shown in Figure 1.

2.2 Residents’ perceived China–Pakistan economic corridor impacts and residents’

perceived destination image
Tourism research suggests that infrastructure development including, road and high-speed
rail networks can contribute to tourist destination image, accessibility, probability of revisit
intention and can foster tourism business (Masson and Petiot, 2009; Della Corte et al.,
2015). Transport infrastructure reinforces destination attractiveness, promotes a tourism
destination, creates competitiveness within destinations and fosters tourism development
(Wang et al., 2012). It may also attract tourists to a lesser known destination, transforming
them into active destinations (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008). According to Bagaeen, (2007)
Dubai has changed from barely known to a well-known destination through infrastructure

Figure 1 Conceptual framework

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 investment. Similarly, Tang and Rochananond (1990) also identified that infrastructure
development in Thailand has a vital role in promoting it as a tourist destination. High-speed rail
infrastructure development in China and Madrid also appears to be attractive to international
tourists (Chen and Haynes, 2015; Pagliara et al., 2015). Furthermore, the tourism demand
significantly increased in Japan and China due to Shinkansen network and High-speed rail
infrastructure respectively (Kurihara and Wu, 2016). In addition, large scale events also help in
the development of local infrastructure, leading to improved destination image and increased
tourism demand (Herz and Arnegger, 2017; Tasci et al., 2019). Therefore, indicates a
significant relationship among transport infrastructure development, destination image and
tourism demand (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2007, 2008).
Conversely, there are negative impacts of mega-infrastructure development along with the
positive, including traffic congestion, overcrowding, noise and environmental pollution
(Kanwal et al., 2019; Lv et al., 2019). However Butlers’ TALC model argues that,
destinations at initial phase of tourism development ignore development costs and perceive
impacts positively (Butler, 1980). Therefore, based on the preceding literature and Butler’s
TALC model the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a. Residents’ perceived CPEC benefits has a positive relationship with their perceived
destination image.
H1b. Residents’ perceived CPEC costs has a positive relationship with their perceived
destination image.

2.3 Residents’ perceived China–Pakistan economic corridor impacts and their

pro-tourism development behaviour
CPEC mega-infrastructure development is likely to affect local residents’ perception
either positively or negatively. The perceived benefits of the CPEC include
infrastructure development, improved transportation, increased trade and community
development, which may also be associated with tourist flows and economic benefits.
Previous tourism research identified that benefits from the CPEC have positively influenced
residents’ perceptions towards tourism development (Nazneen et al., 2019). Residents
possess pro-tourism behaviour when they perceive benefits are more than costs (Gonzalez
et al., 2018), and there is a well-known relationship between infrastructure development and
residents’ pro-tourism behaviour (Kurihara and Wu, 2016).
Mega-infrastructure development within a destination can increase accessibility for tourists
but may ultimately lead to noise and environmental pollution, cultural disruption, traffic
congestion and increased living costs. As residents’ become more aware of tourism
development costs this can negatively influence their PTDB (Gursoy et al., 2010). Therefore,
following preceding literature the hypothesis is proposed:
H2a. Residents’ perceived CPEC benefits has a positive relationship with their pro-
tourism development behaviour.
H2b. Residents’ perceived CPEC costs has a negative relationship with their pro-tourism
development behaviour.

2.4 Residents’ perceived destination image and pro-tourism development behaviour

The previous research indicates that residents’ perceptions of destination image is an
important determinant in understanding their behaviour towards tourism development
(Ramkissoon and Nunkoo, 2011; Schroeder, 1996). Residents with a positive and more
favourable destination image express positive word-of-mouth and possess pro-tourism
development behaviour (Henkel et al., 2006; Stylidis et al., 2014). Previous studies also
indicate that residents with a positive destination image would engage in more trips within

j TOURISM REVIEW j
the area and show pro-tourism development behaviour and support for tourism
(Schroeder,1996). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3. Resident’s perceived destination image has a positive relationship with their pro-
tourism development behaviour.

2.5 Residents’ perceived destination image as a mediating variable

Within tourism research there has been limited attention on the mediation effect of RPDI,
specifically between mega-infrastructure development within a destination and residents’
pro-tourism development behaviour. However, there has been comprehensive research
that has investigated relationships between mega-infrastructure development and
destination image (Herz and Arnegger, 2017; Tasci et al., 2019), between mega-
infrastructure development benefits and resident’ support for tourism (Nazneen et al.,
2019), and the relationship between destination image and pro-tourism behaviour
(Schroeder, 1996; Stylidis et al., 2014). These relationships suggested that perceived
benefits of the CPEC are likely to have a significant relationship with RPDI, which ultimately
influences PTDB. Therefore, following preceding literature the hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Resident’s perceived destination image mediates among perceived CPEC benefits
and pro-tourism development behaviour.
The road infrastructure development improves mobility, access to tourism destinations and
promotes local businesses, although the environment is negatively affected (Martı́n-Cejas
and Sánchez, 2010). However, destinations at the inception stage of development may
ignore development costs and perceive development within the destination positively
because a perceived economic gain (Butler, 1980). Further, residents’ destination image is
known to have a significant relationship with the intention to support tourism (Stylidis et al.,
2014). Thus, based on Butlers’ TALC model and the literature, it is suggested that the costs
of the CPEC may have a positive relationship with RPDI, which may lead to PTDB. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Resident’s perceived destination image mediates among perceived CPEC costs and
pro-tourism development behaviour.

3. Methodology
3.1 Study location
The study was conducted in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), Pakistan, which is at the entrance to the
CPEC and connects China to Central Asia. The CPEC project is a network of modern
transportation infrastructure, solar power energy projects and industrial zones. The main
purpose behind conducting the study in Gilgit-Baltistan was that it could be an attractive tourist
destination with the worlds’ highest mountain ranges, (the Himalayas, the Karakoram, the
Hindukush) and is bestowed with the worlds’ second highest peak K2 and the Nanga Parbat,
and the worlds’ longest glaciers – the Baltoro Glacier, the Biafo Glacier and the Batura Glacier.
The region is famous for mountaineering, trekking, hiking, camping and skiing, yet given this
tourism potential, the destination remains underdeveloped. A lack of infrastructure development
in the region means the destination remains at the initial stages of tourism development.
However, the construction of the Karakoram Highway under the CPEC project has enhanced
the regions beauty, provided increased access and increased tourism demand and flows from
thousands to millions in a short period (Figure 2, Department of Tourism, Gilgit-Baltistan).

3.2 Sampling and data collection

The study was conducted with permanent residents of Pakistan, who were older than
18 years. It is known that structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques require a minimum

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Figure 2 Tourist flows to Gilgit-Baltistan by year

Tourist flow
1,610,000
1,391,628

Tourist flow to GB by year

1,410,000
1,210,000
1,010,000
787,436
810,000
610,000 444,458
410,000
204,733
210,000 33,217 56,415 53,746
10,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
years

Source: Department of Tourism, Gilgit-Baltistan

of 200 respondents for effective parameter estimation (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The
targeted sample size was achieved with stratified random sampling method and selected eight
strata’s (Gilgit, Hunza, Ghizer, Astor, Nagar, Skardu, Ghanche and Kharmang). Further, with a
purposive sampling method, within each district approached residents from schools, colleges,
universities, government and non-government organisations, restaurants/hotels, shopkeepers
and social activists who could read and write and are were aware of the CPEC project.
The interviewer adopted a self-administered questionnaire method and visited the various
institutions mentioned in each district. Investigator sought the voluntary participation of
respondents and investigator briefly explained the purpose of study. Anonymity of their
personal information was assured and to ensure a higher response rate, investigator waited for
the respondents to complete the questionnaire. Investigator distributed 1,000 questionnaires in
eight districts, from the 1,000 distributed, 870 were collected and 70 incomplete questionnaires
were excluded. The remaining 800 completely filled were used for data analysis.

3.3 Instrument development

A four-part self-administered questionnaire was developed using quantitative research
approach. The questionnaire contained four constructs, namely, perceived CPEC benefits,
perceived CPEC costs, residents’ perceived destination image and residents’ pro-tourism
development behaviour. The first section elicited demographic information including
gender, age, education and employment undertaken. The second section measured
residents’ perceptions of the benefits of the CPEC, and relevant items including topics such
as road networks, public/private transportation, the quality of public facilities, perception of
increased trade and accelerated community development, which were used within previous
studies (Kim et al., 2015). The third section examined perceived costs associated with the
CPEC and relevant items including perceptions of the impact on the natural environment
during construction, increased air pollution, disruption to local culture and traffic
congestion) also from the literature (Kim et al., 2015). The fourth section examines RPDI and
relevant items included, (enhance destination recognition, enhance community amenity,
enhance tourism infrastructure, quality restaurant and hotels, promote local culture,
promote skiing, hiking, and camping, improved standard of living, ease of access and
political stability) were adopted from the literature (Gross and Brown, 2008; Schroeder,
1996; Stylidis et al., 2014). Lastly, the fifth section measured resident’s pro-tourism
development behaviour and relevant attributes including a willingness to promote cultural

j TOURISM REVIEW j
exchange, to support hotels and restaurants, to protect natural and environmental
resources, and willingness to promote Gilgit-Baltistan as tourist destination, which were
again adopted from the literature (Kitnuntaviwat and Tang, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2010). A
five-point Likert scale was used to measure constructs. To test reliability of instrument, pilot
study was conducted with sample of 50 respondents, and the coefficient on Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.85.

3.4 Data analysis

A sample of 800 questionnaires were screened in SPSS which indicated neither outliers nor
missing values. Data was therefore appropriate for further analysis, which was conducted in
three steps. First, using Cronbach’s alpha assessed constructs internal consistency.
Second, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) measured construct validity and reliability.
Third, the structural relationships among perceived CPEC impacts, RPDI and pro-tourism
development behaviour were empirically tested.

4. Study findings
4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics
Demographic characteristics of 800 respondents were gender, age, education and
employment. Results indicated that 32% of respondents were women and 68% were men.
The majority of respondents (86%) were between 20 and 40 years of age, and 98% had an
academic degree above secondary. Respondents full-time employment included those in
public/private jobs (54.5%), self-employed (14%) and students (30%). Details of sample are
summarised in Table 1.

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics identified that residents rated all items favourably, the total mean
for perceived CPEC benefits M= 3.971, for perceived CPEC costs M= 3.999, residents’
perceived destination image M= 4.103 and for residents’ pro-tourism development
behaviour M = 4.099. The construct standard deviations (S.D.) and mean are given in
Table 2.

Table 1 Sample profile

Demographic Sample (n = 800) (%)

Gender Male 68
Female 32
Age group 20-30 55.5
31-40 30.5
41-50 9.8
51-60 3.4
61 and above 0.9
Education level Primary 1
Middle 1
Secondary 5
Graduate 36.6
Masters or above 56.3
Employment status Self-employed 14
Public/ private job 54.4
Retired 1.1
Student 30.1
Housewife 4

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 2 The measurement model
Constructs Mean SD Factor loading CR AVE a

Perceived CPEC benefits 3.971 0.82 0.68 0.830

Road networks 3.9975 0.95059 0.86
Public private transportation 3.9025 0.88117 0.68
Quality public facilities 3.7963 0.87932 0.66
Increase trade 4.0962 0.85463 0.58
Accelerate community development 4.0625 0.89140 0.65
Perceived CPEC costs 3.999 0.92 0.87 0.924
Construction destroy natural environment 4.02 0.809 0.93
Increase air pollution 3.8313 0.65827 0.82
Disruption to local culture 4.1075 0.86711 0.86
Traffic congestion 4.0413 0.83392 0.88
Residents’ perceived destination image 4.103 0.96 0.86 0.966
Enhance destination recognition 4.1588 0.82577 0.88
Enhance community amenity 4.2388 0.79217 0.85
Enhance tourism infrastructure 4.0988 0.81843 0.89
Quality restaurant and hotels 4.0100 0.80356 0.80
Promote local culture 4.016 0.7773 0.87
Promote skiing, hiking and camping 4.1050 0.77925 0.91
Improved standard of living 4.0813 0.79242 0.89
Ease of access 4.1100 0.80387 0.90
Political stability 4.1113 0.77274 0.79
Pro-tourism development behaviour 4.099 0.93 0.89 0.938
Willing to promote cultural exchanges 4.2088 0.86825 0.88
Willing to support hotels and restaurants 4.0675 0.87972 0.91
Willing to protect natural environmental resources 4.0575 0.86176 0.91
Willing to promote Gilgit-Baltistan as tourist destination 4.0650 0.90929 0.86

4.3 Measurement model

Using a two-step approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), the four-factor model was
subjected to CFA in AMOS 21.0. CFA was conducted using a SEM technique to measure
composite reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The composite reliability
estimates were at the suggested threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
Therefore, results show internal consistency and reliability of the measurement model (Table
2). The convergent validity of the model was measured through standardised factor
loadings (SFL) and average variance extracted (AVE) values. Results indicated that both
SFL and AVE values were on the recommended threshold of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2011) which indicates the validity of measurement model (Table 2). Finally, to
estimate discriminant validity, the AVE values were compared with the square correlation
among constructs. Results indicated that AVE values were higher than the squared
correlation values among constructs (Table 3), which indicates all constructs were
statistically differed from each other (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Finally, the fit indices results showed that the measurement model is acceptable with x 2/
df = 3.843 (p < 0.001), goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.920, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.959,
incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.969, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.964 and comparative fit
index (CFI) = 0.969, the higher values of GFI, TLI and CFI (around 0.95) indicates a good-
fitting models (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The value for RMSEA =0.060. With RMSEA values
less than 0.07, this indicates good fit (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). The overall results indicate the
measurement model reliable.

4.4 Structural model

The hypothesised relationship results showed that the structural model represents a good fit
with x 2/df = 4.713 (p < 0.001), GFI = 0.908, NFI = 0.949, IFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.952 and CFI =

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 3 Discriminant validity
Perceived CPEC Perceived Residents’ perceived Pro-tourism
Constructs benefits CPEC costs destination image development behaviour

Perceived CPEC benefits 0.68a

Perceived CPEC Costs 0.05b 0.87
Residents’ perceived destination image 0.07 0.05 0.86
Pro-tourism development behaviour 0.08 0.04 0.13 0.89
a b
Notes: italic diagonal numbers are the AVE values. Inter-construct squared correlations

0.960, the higher values of GFI, TLI and CFI (around 0.95) indicated a good-fitting models
(Hu and Bentler, 1999). The value for RMSEA =0.068. With RMSEA values less than 0.07,
this indicates good fit (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). Therefore, the results indicate the proposed
hypothesised model shows a good fit.

4.5 Hypothesis testing and discussion

The current work examined the influence of perceived CPEC impacts on RPDI and PTDB.
Drawing on Butlers’ TALC model, the work investigated the relationship between perceived
CPEC impacts and RPDI. Further, RPDI is examined as the mediating variable between
perceived CPEC impacts and PTDB.
The direct hypothesised relationship confirms that the perceived CPEC benefits (ß = 0.060,
t = 13.462) had a positive influence on RPDI, thus supporting H1a. These results are
consistent with previous literature which suggested that infrastructure development was an
antecedent to destination image building (Delaplace et al., 2014). The perceived costs of
the CPEC (ß = 0.021, t = 8.880) also had a positive effect on RPDI, thus supporting H1b.
These findings reinforce Butlers’ TALC model, which argues that destinations at early phase of
tourism development ignore development costs and perceive impacts positively (Butler,
1980). Likewise, the perceived benefits of the CPEC (ß = 0.077, t = 3.116) had a positive effect
on residents’ PTDB, thus supporting H2a. The study findings are constant with prior studies,
which investigated that mega-infrastructure development positively influences PTDB (Nazneen
et al., 2019). The perceived costs of the CPEC (ß = 0.030, t= 1.709) were found to have had
a significant negative relationship with residents’ PTDB, thus supporting H2b. These findings
supports prior studies which show that residents support tourism when they observe benefits
are more than cost (Gursoy et al., 2010). Furthermore, the direct hypothesised relationship
between RPDI and PTDB was positive and significant (ß = 0.076, t = 11.367), supporting H3.
These findings are also constant with previous literature, which disclosed that perception of
destination image is an important antecedent of their pro-tourism behaviour (Schroeder, 1996;
Stylidis et al., 2014). Standerdised estimates with t-values are given in Table 4.
The indirect hypothesised relationships in bootstrapping further advance the understanding
of these relationships. The study results identified that RPDI partially mediated between
perceived CPEC benefits and PTDB, thus supporting H4. The partial mediation indicated
that perceived CPEC benefits had a direct and indirect effect on PTDB. Similarly, RPDI was
fully mediated among perceived CPEC costs and PTDB, hence supporting H5. The full
mediation indicated that perceived CPEC costs had an indirect effect on PTDB. Results are
shown in Table 5.

4.6 Multiple group analysis

The multiple group analysis was conducted in SEM to test if results differ by socio-
demographic characteristics. Gender wise (male and female), age wise (below 30 years

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 4 Estimated standardised coefficients
Path relationship Stand. estimates t-value Results

H1a. Perceived CPEC benefits ! Residents’

perceived destination image 0.060 13.462 Supported
H1b. Perceived CPEC Costs ! Residents’
perceived destination image 0.021 8.880 Supported
H2a. Perceived CPEC benefits ! Pro-tourism
development behaviour 0.077 3.116 Supported
H2a. Perceived CPEC costs ! Pro-tourism
development behaviour 0.030 -1.709 Supported
H3. Residents’ perceived destination image !
Pro-tourism development behaviour 0.076 11.367 Supported
  
Notes: = p < 0.01; = p < 0.05; = p < 0.1

Table 5 Mediation effect

Path relationship Direct effect (x ! y) Indirect effect (x ! y) Result

H4. Perceived CPEC benefits !

Residents’ perceived destination
image ! Pro-tourism development
behaviour 0.164  0.480 Partial mediation
H5. Perceived CPEC costs !
Residents’ perceived destination
image ! Pro-tourism development
behaviour 0.050(ns) 0.158 Full mediation
  
Notes: = p < 0.01, = p < 0.05, = p < 0.1

and above 30 years) and employment wise (working group and students), the results
showed that there was no significant difference in perceptions. These result results are
demonstrated in Table 6.

5. Conclusion
The study addresses a gap in the literature by developing a conceptual integrative model,
which examines the influence of the perceived impacts of the CPEC on RPDI and PTDB. The
empirically tested model revealed that perceived CPEC impacts (benefits and costs) has a
significant positive effect on RPDI, and RPDI influences PTDB. Further, RPDI as a mediator
influences the relationship among perceived CPEC impacts (benefits and costs) and PTDB.

5.1 Theoretical and practical implications

The novel theoretical contribution of current work is an enhanced understanding of
residents’ destination image in the context of Butler’s TALC Model within the context of

Table 6 Multi group analysis

Constrained Unconstrained p-value for nested
Demography model (chi sq.) df (constrained) model (chi sq.) df (unconstrained) comparison Results

Gender 1250 397 1248 392 0.849 No difference

Age 1331 397 1328 392 0.700 No difference
Employment 1289 397 1281 392 0.156 No difference

j TOURISM REVIEW j
the CPEC cross-border mega-infrastructure development project. The results indicated
that perceived CPEC costs have a positive relationship with RPDI, which shows that
destinations at early phase of tourism development ignore development cost and
perceive impacts on destination positively. Therefore, from an academic perspective,
current work advances the tourism literature by further extending Butler’s TALC model
in destination image studies. Therefore, these findings assist to better understand the
perceived impacts of the CPEC as significant predictor of RPDI. The Gilgit-Baltistan
region is an under-developed tourism destination that has future potential. The mega-
infrastructure development project within the region has increased tourism demand
and flows of tourists and therefore, residents have perceived the destination image
positively, even if there are infrastructure development costs. The study also
contributes to tourism literature by further extending stakeholder theory from residents’
destination image perspective. The findings identified a direct relationship among
perceived CPEC impacts (benefits and costs) and RPDI and subsequently RPDI is
likely to play a significant role in PTDB. Residents’ destination image acts as a
destination ambassadors to non-residents (Hudson and Hawkins, 2006).
The findings offer several practical implications for stakeholders including government,
policymakers and tourism related organisations. The local authorities should ensure residents
are involved in tourism-related planning and management processes, as residents’ have a
deeper understanding of place. Further, the involvement of all stakeholders including
(residents’ and tourists) in tourism planning process can help in organising resources,
knowledge sharing and governance of tourism destination (Barandiarán et al., 2019; Fyall and
Garrod, 2019). In addition, the government could improve community services by providing
entertainment and leisure opportunities and support the establishment of quality hospitality
services. Moreover, the government and policymakers could use social media platforms to
promote the destination based on its tourism potential.

5.2 Limitations and future research

Despite the works theoretical contributions, some limitations may be addressed in future
research. Generalisation of the works findings may be limited, given the proposed model
was tested at a destination influenced by a specific project, the CPEC. Reducing the scope
of the work to address only residents’ perceptions may be extended in future studies to
include tourists and may help to compare resident and tourist perceptions of destination
image.

References
Albalate, D. and Bel, G. (2010), “Tourism and urban public transport: holding demand pressure under
supply constraints”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 425-433.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.

Bagaeen, S. (2007), “Brand Dubai: the instant city; or the instantly recognizable city”, International
Planning Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-197.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Barandiarán, X., Restrepo, N. and Luna, Á. (2019), “Collaborative governance in tourism: lessons from
Etorkizuna Eraikiz in the Basque Country, Spain”, Tourism Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 902-914.
Buhalis, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 97-116.
Butler, R.W. (1980), “The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of
resources”, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-12.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Chen, Z. and Haynes, K.E. (2015), “Impact of high-speed rail on international tourism demand in China”,
Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-60.
Chen, C.-F. and Phou, S. (2013), “A closer look at destination: image, personality, relationship and
loyalty”, Tourism Management, Vol. 36, pp. 269-278.

Delaplace, M., Pagliara, F., Perrin, J. and Mermet, S. (2014), “Can high speed rail foster the choice
of destination for tourism purpose?”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 111,
pp. 166-175.
Della Corte, V., Sciarelli, M., Cascella, C. and Del Gaudio, G. (2015), “Customer satisfaction in tourist
destination: the case of tourism offer in the city of Naples”, Journal of Investment and Management, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Feliu, J. (2012), “High-speed rail in European medium-sized cities: stakeholders and urban
development”, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 138 No. 4, pp. 293-302.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (2019), “Destination management: a perspective article”, Tourism Review, Vol. 75
No. 1. doi: 10.1108/TR-07-2019-0311.
Gonzalez, V.M., Coromina, L. and Galı́, N. (2018), “Overtourism: residents’ perceptions of tourism impact
as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity - case study of a Spanish heritage town”, Tourism
Review, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 277-296.
Gross, M.J. and Brown, G. (2008), “An empirical structural model of tourists and places:
progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 1141-1151.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C.G. and Dyer, P. (2010), “Locals’ attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: the
case of Sunshine Coast, Australia”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 381-394.
Hadinejad, A., Moyle, B.D., Scott, N., Kralj, A. and Nunkoo, R. (2019), “Residents’ attitudes to tourism: a
review”, Tourism Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet’, The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Henkel, R., Henkel, P., Agrusa, W., Agrusa, J. and Tanner, J. (2006), “Thailand as a tourist destination:
perceptions of international visitors and Thai residents”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 269-287.
Herz, M. and Arnegger, J. (2017), “Country image formation, stability, and change: a longitudinal
assessment of consumers’ image of Azerbaijan”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 9,
pp. 1169-1183.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hudson, M. and Hawkins, N. (2006), “A tale of two cities: a commentary on historic and current
marketing strategies used by the Liverpool and Glasgow regions”, Place Branding, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 155-176.
Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A.H., Rasheed, M.I., Pitafi, A. and Iqbal, J. (2019), “Assessment of residents’
perceptions and support toward development projects: a study of the China–Pakistan economic
corridor”, The Social Science Journal, in press.
Khadaroo, J. and Seetanah, B. (2007), “Transport infrastructure and tourism development”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1021-1032.
Khadaroo, J. and Seetanah, B. (2008), “The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism
development: a gravity model approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 831-840.
Kim, W., Jun, H.M., Walker, M. and Drane, D. (2015), “Evaluating the perceived social impacts of hosting
large-scale sport tourism events: SCALE development and validation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48,
pp. 21-32.
Kim, S., Lehto, X. and Kandampully, J. (2019), “The role of familiarity in consumer destination image
formation”, Tourism Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 885-901.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Kim, D. and Perdue, R.R. (2011), “The influence of image on destination attractiveness”, Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 225-239.
Kitnuntaviwat, V. and Tang, J.C.S. (2008), “Residents’ attitudes, perception and support for sustainable
tourism development”, Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Kozak, M. and Buhalis, D. (2019), “Cross–border tourism destination marketing: prerequisites and critical
success factors”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 14, p. 100392.
Kurihara, T. and Wu, L. (2016), “The impact of high speed rail on tourism development: a case study of
Japan”, The Open Transportation Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-44.

Li, M. and Chen, J. (2019), “High-speed rail network in China: the contribution of fast trains to regional
tourism and economic development”, Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 2.
Lv, Q., Liu, H., Yang, D. and Liu, H. (2019), “Effects of urbanization on freight transport carbon emissions in
China: common characteristics and regional disparity”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 481-489.
Martı́n-Cejas, R.R. and Sánchez, P.R.P. (2010), “Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to
tourism activity: the case for Lanzarote island”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 98-103.
Masson, S. and Petiot, R. (2009), “Can the high-speed rail reinforce tourism attractiveness? the case of
the high-speed rail between Perpignan (France) and Barcelona (Spain)”, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 9,
pp. 611-617.
Nazneen, S., Xu, H. and Din, N.U. (2019), “Cross-border infrastructural development and residents’
perceived tourism impacts: a case of China-Pakistan economic corridor”, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 1-10.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pagliara, F., Delaplace, M. and Vassallo, J.M. (2015), “High-speed rail systems and tourists’ destination
choice: the case studies of Paris and Madrid”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and
Planning, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 399-410.
Rahman, F., Tabassum, I. and Haq, F. (2013), “Problems, potential and development of international
tourism in Gilgit-Baltistan region, Northern Pakistan”, Journal of Science and Technology-University of
Peshawar, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 25-35.
Ramkissoon, H. and Nunkoo, R. (2011), “City image and perceived tourism impact: evidence from Port
Louis, Mauritius”, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 123-143.
Raza, S.A. and Jawaid, S.T. (2013), “Terrorism and tourism: a conjunction and ramification in Pakistan”,
Economic Modelling, Vol. 33, pp. 65-70.

Schroeder, T. (1996), “The relationship of residents’ image of their state as a tourist destination and their
support for tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 71-73.
Stylidis, D. (2019), “Residents’ destination image: a perspective article”, Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 1.
Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. and Szivas, E.M. (2014), “Residents’ support for tourism development: the role of
residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts”, Tourism Management, Vol. 45, pp. 260-274.
Stylidis, D. and Cherifi, B. (2018), “Characteristics of destination image: visitors and non-visitors’ images
of London”, Tourism Review, Vol. 73 No. 1.
Tang, J.C.S. and Rochananond, N. (1990), “Attractiveness as a tourist destination: a comparative
study of Thailand and selected countries”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 229-236.

Tasci, A.D.A., Hahm, J. and Terry, D.B. (2019), “A longitudinal study of Olympic games’ impact on the
image of a host country”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.

Wang, X., Huang, S., Zou, T. and Yan, H. (2012), “Effects of the high-speed rail network on China’s
regional tourism development”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-38.
Yang, J., Yuan, B. and Hu, P. (2009), “Tourism destination image and visit intention: examining the role of
familiarity”, Journal of China Tourism Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 174-187.
Zeugner-Roth, K.P. and Žabkar, V. (2015), “Bridging the gap between country and destination image:
Assessing common facets and their predictive validity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 9,
pp. 1844-1853.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 About the authors
Shama Nazneen received Master of Development Studies from COMSATS University.
Currently, she is doing PhD from Nankai university china in tourism management. Her area
of research is destination image, quality of life, infrastructural development (i.e. BRI),
sustainable tourism.

Prof. Hong Xu received a PhD in Business Management from Nankai University, China, in
2003. Currently, she is a Professor with the Department of Tourism and Service
Management, Nankai University. Her research interests include tourism industry ecology,
tourism destination competence, tourism supply-chain management, tourism enterprises
strategy and innovation management, and service management and financial
management.
Nizam Ud Din received MBA (finance) from COMSATS University in 2007. Currently, he is
enrolled in PhD at Nankai Business School, Nankai University, PR China. He is a Lecturer
with Karakoram International University, Pakistan since 2008. His research focuses on
tourism, gender and accounting. Nizam Ud Din is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: nixamuddin@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j TOURISM REVIEW j